You just don’t get it do you? We want a intelligence gathering operation that safeguard’s American rights and privacy. The FISA law came about because a Rethugglican president was caught red-handed breaking our laws (of course his veep let him off the hook, typical). For cryin out loud the NSA wanted to tap a Congressman without a warrant! I can only imagine how many times the shrubco junta actually broke the law…

But you are the wwnj extremist who thinks bush never broke any laws. Ever.
Careful how you respond as I know I can dig that up. Just as I know the cat in your box is dead (ie you still can’t offer a coherent explanation of your taxamagical ‘formula’). My math is real world, yours is taxamagical.

Seriously, have you ever had a thought that was fact-based?
I’ll wait. (crickets)

yes yes, I read that clip, quite a while ago, but it is still broken: an effective tax rate is the cumulative total tax. Perhaps you could look it up or refer to knarly’s links. Your taxamagical ‘formula’ compares part of one effective rate to just part of another, all to the end of pumping up the rate (slightly, no where near your claimed effective 51% rate).

Since we are forced yet again to give you remedial instruction:
http://www.lies.com/wp/2009/04/01/texas-officially-makes-the-universe-ageless/#comment-145112

My math is simple and direct.
A person pays taxes.
Under plan A he pays X amount.
Under plan B he pays Y amount.
compare the two

Your formula is somethign like: income A x tax rate% and income A x tax rate%+3% then framistat subtracted by gazignazoid = 51%! Socialism, also!

you just don’t know what the fuck you are talking about (as usual).

- – - –

I have read the FISA bill etc. Since you obviously haven’t read the bill or its amendments, please allow reality to intrude just for a moment:
uscode.house.gov/download/pls/50c36.txt

You really don’t have any idea what you are talking about do you? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/us/16nsa.html?_r=2&pagewanted=2&hp

I wonder how many times they broke the law? We’ll never know if the Obama administration keeps stonewalling on executive privilege and domestic spying abuses. This is the bipartisanship that Obama promised: letting go of these abuses to focus on the future. I think this is a mistake as it just lets the perps go free to do this kind of crap again and again.

I think we should be tapping every single call in and out of Saudi Arabia and any other country we damn well please. But if you want to tap the comm of Americans, get a court order within three days or it is illegal and (at least as important) inadmissible. We used to be a nation of Laws, but the shrubco junta thought the US Constitution was (in dumbya’s words) “jes a gawdam piece a paper!” wwnjs just don’t get it. We want the law upheld and those who broke it brought before a court of Law. Simple.

ps – I know you think it ’smart’ to include big words, but episiotomy doesn’t mean what you think it means (again, this is remedial as we’ve been over this before). Epistemology is the word you are looking for. I’ll just put you down for too stupid to understand.

pps – owned again

Domestic eavesdropping has been a contentious issue since 2005, when the Times revealed that for years following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NSA intercepted international phone conversations and e-mails involving U.S. citizens without a warrant.

That program ended in 2007, and the following year Congress passed legislation requiring the NSA to get court approval to monitor the purely domestic communications of Americans who came under suspicion.

Compare that to:

I think we just want the FISA law upheld. Meaning (and this is as simply as one can put it) no spying on Americans without a court order.

So why did congress feel the need to pass a law if the FISA law already made it illegal to spy on Americans? The point here is that you don’t know diddly squat of the subject matter you pontificate about. But of course you aren’t the one with his episiotomy broken because you are in the best of company of people that don’t know diddly, making me a rarity.

Now the statement was the “effective rate” is 51%, the reason we use the modifier “effective” is because we are comparing the effect of the change if only the top marginal rate were to change. We aren’t changing the actual percentages, we can’t do that.
So let’s use your numbers, at 33% and 36% the tax is 66k +108k = 174k and at 36% and 39% it is 72K +117k = 189k just like you said. But the statement is saying what would happen if nothing else changed but the top marginal rate. So what we are concerned with is what percentage of 300k (the wages of the top bracket) would it take to make the difference of the additional taxes of both brackets. 189k-66k = 123k or 41%
Now let’s use the same formula for someone making 250k, 33% of 200k is 66k, 36% of 50k is 18k for a total of 84k. 36 and 39% gives us a total of $91,500. 91,500 minus 66k is 25,500 and 25,500 is 51% of $50,000.
For someone making $250,000 the 39% tax bracket represents a 51% EFFECTIVE tax bracket when compared to what he is paying now. Using your numbers.

Now answer my question.

poor widdle dbag, can’t actually explain macho mike’s taxamagical ‘formula’.
Your hate radio ‘formula’ doesn’t pump a 3% tax increase on the highest bracket up to a effective 51% rate. That is a fact, but you dbags don’t do well with facts.

Seriously, people laugh in your face and mock you because you don’t have the wit to figure out a math problem that even a 9 year old can understand (and solve correctly). What a douchebag. gfy

When you can actually grow a pair and admit that the ‘formula’ from your fav hate radio show is bunk, then we can talk. Or you actually offer up a coherent explanation as to why your formula includes some data here, but not there, and compares numbers in illogical ways that never do come close to an effective 51% tax rate. Facts is so liberal, eh?

I’ll answer your questions when you answer mine. So until then it’s a Schrödinger’s Cat sort of situation isn’t it. I know you have a dead cat in your box (ie no logical explanation for the taxamagical ‘formula’) and I think you know full well your formula is dbag bullshit or you would actually try to, you know, explain it. But you can’t call my bluff (or is it?) until you actually open the box and acknowledge your dead cat.

But do totter off, clutching your pearls and waving your hanky, blubbering about how it’s all the fault of us dumb liberals.

1. have you read the FISA law?

2. do you understand what is in it?

I bet you clutch your pearls and totter off claiming victory once again.

END ALL
UNCONSTITUTIONAL
ANTI-CHRIST
SOCIALISM
FEDERAL
DEFICIT SPENDING
PROGRAMS

bwahahahaha

ignorance must be such bliss

http://www.lies.com/wp/2009/04/09/obama-continues-pushing-state-secrets/#comment-145579

For today only I am going to call you dbag instead of wrong wing nut job. Have a great tax day (and yeah, I am pretty unhappy about the largest chunk of my taxes going to red states dbags like you – grrr! grrr I tell you, grrr). In honor of all of the tea bagger astroturf ‘protests’ going on nationwide.

You have a great tea baggin day there dbag.

This is why everyone to the left of you (which is a clear supermajority of sane folks everywhere) mocks you to your face at cocktail parties and other gatherings not militia-related. Why are you a subject of ridicule and scorn? Because you willfully believe blatantly false wwnj propaganda and are dumb enough to open your mouth and say so (over and over and over).

Just thought you should know.

btw – no you did not explain why you leave out pieces of the tax rates in macho mike’s taxamagical ‘formula’. Your only explanation was something like “I heard it on hate radio, seemed right(wing) to me, and you libs iz too dum to unerstan” My comparison of effective tax rates is the real world logical math validated comparison of adding 3% to the top rate. Your ‘formula’ is wwnj bullshit.

have a great dbag day!

I take it you haven’t read any of the FISA law, just propaganda, if you had read it you would know that indeed the government can listen in on American citizens if they are suspected of working for a terrorist organization. Making you ignorent of a subject you have no problem commenting on in the strongest terms.